Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Some of the members thought I was funny, but others very much didn't. I've lost count of how many times I've been told to "grow up" .

Ah, they need to "loosen up." Gotta have a sense of humour.

A lot of it is to do with advertising. Apparently, advertisers are terrified of upsetting the woke community.

I thought the Wokies were all haters of "capitalism"...hardly the cllientele being sought by advertisers.

[Ansiktsburk]

Noted, it's 20 times mostly mentioned by me.
To me, objectivity [FSK conditioned] is intersubjectivity.
Do you have any views on this?

That I’m probably with you on this one.

The PH's OP rejects that Morality is Objective.
How would you counter that with intersubjectivity as objectivity?
Btw, what references are you relying on re intersubjectivity?

Morality: Intersubjectivity and Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40391

That morality isnt as bold as saying there’s a one size fits all but rather a convention among people.
The reference is like 10 ys of reading political philosopy and ajacent philosophies creating a kind of hunch of what it could be. Down my gut. I could come up with a list of media referring to that. But I have no facit.

[Dontaskme]

I thought the Wokies were all haters of "capitalism"...hardly the cllientele being sought by advertisers.

In the Star Wars universe's struggle against imperial fascism, one of the fiercest rivalries exists in the background, in the lore that makes up the galaxy. That would be the feud between the Wookiees and Trandoshans.

[Will Bouwman]

Nothing you've said so far makes me think you know anything about my biography or my spiritual search, and everything you suggested so far about that would strongly imply, given what my journey had actually been, that you were wildly guessing and missing the truth on that.

Well, unless none of those 21000+ posts represent the real you, there is a fair bit of information to extrapolate from.

And you want me to suppose you've read all those, too?

No more than you want me to suppose that all the ones I have read give the wrong impression.

As I was saying to Gus, what opinion are we to form of a man who says things like these:

I would hope it was a good opinion: and I certainly stand behind what I've said. But you might take a great deal more than that from my previous comments, too. I suppose it would depend on what you, yourself were determined to take from them.

Your personality is not the product of any determination I make. What seems inconsistent to me is that you will more readily appeal to the character of atheists, or rather your ideologically motivated Atheists, than to people such as you. From what you say, at least what I have read, it seems clear that you think "Atheists", though not necessarily atheists, are motivated by rebellion against a God who wants them to be free, and to reward them with eternal happiness. Is there another way to interpret this?

The Source is God. If He says, "Take responsibility for yourself," then it's amoral imperative. Even a complete Atheist would have to recognize that IF God existed, that would be enough to make that a reality. He can just comfort himself on that with his conviction that God doesn't exist.

Or this?

The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel Can wrote:



The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?

The only evidence for God’s existence is in the text written by theists who believed on faith alone that he exists.

The absence of evidence for God’s existence is claimed by the atheist who believed on faith alone that he doesn’t exist.

Just believing in something or not something is not evidence for either belief.

For example: I can believe in the existence of a male volent God just as easily as believing in a male God called a BENevolent God by faith alone, but that would not be evidence for either belief.

Adam is also believed to be God, and so is the Ben evolent God.

Adam and Ben the believed on faith fictional characters is plenty of evidence of a NO SHOW SHOW

From belief to clarity.

[promethean75]

"The absence of evidence for God’s existence is claimed by the atheist who believed on faith alone that he doesn’t exist."

that describes the agnostic, not the atheist proper. an atheist proper does not understand the question 'does god exist' becuz it contains a meaningless term (god).

if i aksed u 'do u believe a shniggle wopter exists', which of these would be your answer:

1. yes
2. no
3. i'm sorry, what is a shniggle wopter?

[Immanuel Can]

What seems inconsistent to me is that you will more readily appeal to the character of atheists, or rather your ideologically motivated Atheists, than to people such as you.

I don't, actually. Check back, and you'll see.

This difference may seem trivial to you, but it really matters: what I appeal to is not anybody's particular charater (I have, for example, readily admitted that many Atheists behave like conventionally-moral people), but to what Atheism itself rationalizes. I criticize the ideology, and I criticize the sort of character to which it conduces, and which it rationalizes; but I do not "appeal to the character of Atheists" at all.

From what you say, at least what I have read, it seems clear that you think "Atheists", though not necessarily atheists, are motivated by rebellion against a God who wants them to be free, and to reward them with eternal happiness. Is there another way to interpret this?

Well, Atheists...like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche...the proud ones, the ones who trumpet their Atheism, exhibit their own anger and rebelliion against God, and in fact, often declare it as a badge of honour. So what are we to make of them? Are we to disbelieve them?

The Source is God. If He says, "Take responsibility for yourself," then it's a moral imperative. Even a complete Atheist would have to recognize that IF God existed, that would be enough to make that a reality. He can just comfort himself on that with his conviction that God doesn't exist.

That's perfectly reasonable. Notice the hypothetical "IF," which I even put in capitals, so you wouldn't miss it. IF God exists, then objective morality is not at all hard to understand; and even a reasonable Atheist would indeed have to concede that. Just as I would concede, quite freely, that IF God did not exist, then there would be no objective morality (and, we might add, subjective morality would be a mere imagining). That's all totally fair.

Or this?

The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?

Again, a perfectly fair statement, and one that's been justified by the previous debate. For example, the impossibility of an actual regress of causes is an absolute slam-dunk mathematical proof of a First Cause of some kind. What are you to make of people who don't accept the truth of mathematics?

[bahman]

That's perfectly reasonable. Notice the hypothetical "IF," which I even put in capitals, so you wouldn't miss it. IF God exists, then objective morality is not at all hard to understand; and even a reasonable Atheist would indeed have to concede that. Just as I would concede, quite freely, that IF God did not exist, then there would be no objective morality (and, we might add, subjective morality would be a mere imagining). That's all totally fair.

How morality could be objective if its objectiveness depends on the existence of God? If morality is objective then it would be obvious to every rational being without the need to prove God and then relate its objectiveness to God. Relating its objectiveness to God is dangerous since God is disproven once objective morality is disproven. You are having a difficult time since you need to prove that God exists, which is the subject of serious debate. You also need to prove that morality is objective. You finally need to prove whatever God commands is objective.

[Immanuel Can]

That's perfectly reasonable. Notice the hypothetical "IF," which I even put in capitals, so you wouldn't miss it. IF God exists, then objective morality is not at all hard to understand; and even a reasonable Atheist would indeed have to concede that. Just as I would concede, quite freely, that IF God did not exist, then there would be no objective morality (and, we might add, subjective morality would be a mere imagining). That's all totally fair.

How morality could be objective if its objectiveness depends on the existence of God?

Very easily. That's what "objective" entails...it means that morality is intrinsic to the created order, precisely because God created everything with moral significance.

If morality is objective then it would be obvious to every rational being without the need to prove God

No, that would be wrong. "Objective" doesn't mean, "obvious to everybody." It just means, "True, whether particular people know it or not."

The law of gravity is objective. If you ignore it, it won't go away or become less objective. It will just make you fall anyway.

Relating its objectiveness to God is dangerous since God is disproven once objective morality is disproven.

No, that's not logical.

The existence of morality depends on the existence of God; but that doesn't at all mean that the existence of God is dependent on the existence of morality.

Think of it like this: if there are no dogs, there are no German Shepherd dogs. But if there are no German Shepherd dogs, it doesn't entail that there are no poodles, or chihuahuas, or cane corsos. There's the logical fallacy.

Moreover, since both exist, there's no conflict there, either way.

[promethean75]

"Well, Atheists...like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche...the proud ones, the ones who trumpet their Atheism, exhibit their own anger and rebelliion against God"

nothing is more tiresome than playing this insipid little game with christians where they insist u really DO believe in god and u need to be a man and admit it, blah blah. it's like here's this deranged mental midget who thinks HE'S smarter than ME and is doing me a favor.

kay an atheist can't rebel against something he doesn't think exists. what he can do instead is parody, or i should say caricature, the circumstances that would exist IF this god existed so that believers in god might catch a glimpse of the absurdity of the situation and what they believe.

the two bigguns are the first cause and the no freewill argument. if this god these people believe in, exists, it would be absolutely to blame for absolutely everything that happens, including all the bullshit. second, freewill would be absolutely impossible, especially impossible, if this god existed. so the 'god made evil so u can exercise your freewill to choose good' is nonsense. it's a card trick. freewill is incomprehensible baloney in any possible universe even without god... but it would be absolute and incontrovertible nonsense if an omnipotent and omniscient god existed. freewill would be logically and physically impossible.

what these honorable atheist souls recognize is how ridiculous the world is as it is... let alone if god existed... in which case it would be doubly ridiculous becuz something would be to blame for the way it is: wait... u made it that way on purpose?! get the fuck outta here u freak!

what sickens them is the obstinacy of the believers who've got everything so utterly wrong while they, the atheists, are working so hard to better the world. these guys aren't mad at god, but repulsed by those who believe in god. naturally, when they attack religion, the religious think they're merely angry at god becuz they can only interpret this caricature as a child would interpret a sibling's revolt against a parent's authority. if the atheist is misbehaving he must be angry at dad.... when, in fact, he's disgusted by little brother's groveling childishness.

harris, sam is the one i most empathize with. i truly do get it. this religious nonsense is not only ridiculous but it's also down right offensive to any sensible person. to actually WANT to worship a god like the christian god, even if it existed, is sickening beyond words. that god is a raving indecisive misogynistic genocidal slave driving racist psychopathic maniac.

but'cha just can't wrap your head around this irony if u are unable to understand that god is the cause of everything and that there is no freewill. only if u understand these two bigguns will u be able to see the world as it would have to be in the case that god exists. a sadistic joke of cosmic proportions. fortunately since god doesn't exist, we can attribute no sadism to its creation, and, with a little luck, make it a better place for future generations.

[promethean75]

now it could be the case that a long long time ago in a galaxy not far far away but right here instead, some alien race overlords came to the erf and planted life on it with the intention of some finished product- say the jews or whatever- holding dominion over the planet and living happily ever after. but then maybe shit went wrong or even some other aliens came to dispute the jew's ownership and planted their guys on erf too and a war broke out. for all we know our evolutionary history may be a hoax. maybe all that crazy stuff in the bible about giants and Ezekiel's trip when he saw that space ship or whatever... maybe all that's this alien business.

if that's the case, we're good with that becuz that's what sentient species in the universe do. they fight and shit and lay claim to land. the shit show that is now the erf would be understandable.

but if there were no aliens and this is the work of a god... well that's just unacceptable unless this god is an asshole. but if he's an asshole, i am perfectly within my rights to defy him becuz I'm not an asshole and i don't like assholes. duddint matter if i burn in hell by defying him. i won't be a roasted asshole and I'm okay with that. roasted, but not as asshole.

[iambiguous]

Well, Atheists...like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche...the proud ones, the ones who trumpet their Atheism, exhibit their own anger and rebelliion against God, and in fact, often declare it as a badge of honour. So what are we to make of them? Are we to disbelieve them?

On the other hand...

The world around us is often bursting at the seams with "acts of God":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Now, if you are a Christian you can sink down into the comforting and consoling belief that there is, in fact, a Divine Reason for it all. Indeed, some can make it all the way to the grave believing this. Then, whether it is true or not, they're gone anyway.

If you are an atheist however all you can do when these "acts of God" upend your own life is to accept that, well, "shit happens". There is no essential meaning one can attach all of the ghastly pain and suffering to. You simply endure it and wait for the next calamity.

Same with man-made hellholes. Yes, much of the pain and suffering -- genocide, war, rape, child-abuse -- is as a result of things that mere mortals choose to do. But the Christian God is said to be omnipotent. He could end all of that in the blink of an eye.

He does not.

Cue Harold Kushner? Cue Deism? Cue those who suggest it is all perfectly reasonable if you accept that the Christian God is a sadistic monster.

So, of course, there are atheists who will express something in the way of anger at God. That's the part of them [of me anyway] that acknowledges an existing God would at least provide them with something -- anything -- to aim their grim reaction to the terrible pain and suffering at.

Again, it's God or the brute facticity embedded in a meaningless and purposeless universe.

"Shit happens" or it all fits into God's [ultimately] loving, just and merciful...motivation and intention?

[bahman]

That's perfectly reasonable. Notice the hypothetical "IF," which I even put in capitals, so you wouldn't miss it. IF God exists, then objective morality is not at all hard to understand; and even a reasonable Atheist would indeed have to concede that. Just as I would concede, quite freely, that IF God did not exist, then there would be no objective morality (and, we might add, subjective morality would be a mere imagining). That's all totally fair.

How morality could be objective if its objectiveness depends on the existence of God?

Very easily. That's what "objective" entails...it means that morality is intrinsic to the created order, precisely because God created everything with moral significance.

No, such a morality is biased with the nature of the creator.

If morality is objective then it would be obvious to every rational being without the need to prove God

No, that would be wrong. "Objective" doesn't mean, "obvious to everybody." It just means, "True, whether particular people know it or not."

The law of gravity is objective. If you ignore it, it won't go away or become less objective. It will just make you fall anyway.

By obvious, I mean that it is true and everybody would agree with it.

Relating its objectiveness to God is dangerous since God is disproven once objective morality is disproven.

No, that's not logical.

It follows given the definition of objective morality as I stated in the last comment.

The existence of morality depends on the existence of God;

The existence of objective morality does not depend on the existence of God. Objective morality should stand on its own if it is objective. Like knowledge which is objective.

but that doesn't at all mean that the existence of God is dependent on the existence of morality.

Well, It means.

Moreover, since both exist, there's no conflict there, either way.

Prove that God exists.

[Harbal]

If morality is objective then it would be obvious to every rational being without the need to prove God

No, that would be wrong. "Objective" doesn't mean, "obvious to everybody." It just means, "True, whether particular people know it or not."

The law of gravity is objective. If you ignore it, it won't go away or become less objective. It will just make you fall anyway.

It is very easy to demonstrate that the law of gravity objectively exists, but impossible to demonstrate that an objective moral truth exists. So if there were such a thing as objective moral truth, nobody could ever know for sure what it was.

[Immanuel Can]

How morality could be objective if its objectiveness depends on the existence of God?

Very easily. That's what "objective" entails...it means that morality is intrinsic to the created order, precisely because God created everything with moral significance.

No, such a morality is biased with the nature of the creator.

You're using "objective" in two different senses: one is, "actually true, regardless of subjectivity," which is what this OP is talking about. The other is "impartial," which is not what the OP is implying at all.

If morality is objective then it would be obvious to every rational being without the need to prove God

No, that would be wrong. "Objective" doesn't mean, "obvious to everybody." It just means, "True, whether particular people know it or not."

The law of gravity is objective. If you ignore it, it won't go away or become less objective. It will just make you fall anyway.

By obvious, I mean that it is true and everybody would agree with it.

That is not what "objective" ever means. It means "true regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it."

Relating its objectiveness to God is dangerous since God is disproven once objective morality is disproven.

No, that's not logical.

It follows given the definition of objective morality as I stated in the last comment.

No, actually...it doesn't.

Moreover, since both exist, there's no conflict there, either way.

Prove that God exists.

I've already done quite a variety of that. What is it that you will accept as proof?